Continuing the discussion from Are Birds a type of Dinosaur?:
@Patrick wants to talk about Marry and the Virgin Conception.
That is done all the time now, it is called in-vitro fertilization, no miracle just science and technology solving problems for couples having trouble conceiving. Will be the norm soon not the exception.
And how does this relate to the virgin conception?
It is related because what seems to have been described as being a miracle that only God can do is now either commonplace in today’s world or explainable with the natural laws of physics.
So someone gave Mary in-vitro?
I don’t believe anyone said anything like that.
I was a communicating something to creationist Christians in a way they would follow.
Why is it that BioLogos atheists understand this practice… and you seem absolutely baffled by it all.
And without her consent (or her parent’s consent). In the morality of that time, it would be a high honor to have your daughter impregnated by God. Today, it would be considered immoral, statutory rape, unethical. God didn’t even have the decency to ask Mary in a dream, or appear to her directly. Instead God sends an intermediary, an angel, to tell her the “good news”. Your pregnant and your unwed. Watch out for the townspeople who may stone you to death. She is treated as a vessel. It was very consistent for the morality of the time when daughters were the property of their fathers and husbands. The KJV tries to soften the story somewhat but 16th century woman’s rights are far from 21st century woman’s rights.
Because they are greatly censored! I am not baffled by it, I understand what and how they are doing it. It is manipulated, censored, edited to keep it on message. Don’t you see it? You are one of the biggest tools that they have, with your God guided cosmic ray theory.
Just for my info, do you feel censored here?
Certainly not. That’s is why I opened up personally here.
1 Like
No. That answer is wrong. The difference is that the BioLogos atheists have more self-control, and they know it makes little sense to argue against God on a site where even scientists talk about God’s involvement in evolution.
Who are these Biologos atheist that you speak of? Are they anonymous? Do they have any affiliations? Why do you think that they hang out there? Maybe they are only 99.9% atheist? Maybe they are just there to gather information? Or just curious? Or maybe they are not yet “out of the closet” atheists to their family, friends, and co-workers. They might be Catholic Atheist and find that Biologos is comfortable as they can continue to be “in the closet” atheist and their family, co-workers, can still consider them “good Christians”. If Biologos was around 30 years ago, I could have easily been a TE or EC person. It lined up perfectly with my scientific work and my Cultural Catholicism.
1 Like
T_Aquaticus is a fairly good example. You can do the rest of your research on your own.
I got on with T_water pretty well during my brief time there.
1 Like
What got lost in the shuffle here is the assertion that Mary was “impregnated without her consent.” A simple reading of Luke chapter 1 dispenses with that old shibboleth.
–The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.” Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God. And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month. For nothing will be impossible with God.” And Mary said, “Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her. - Luke 1:30-38 NASB (Note that in all this, the future tense prevails. Note also Mary’s self-description: a bondslave was one who had been released from any remaining obligations of slavery, but who had entreated their “master” for the opportunity to voluntarily remain serving in the household. Mary was, in no manner, asked to do anything against her will; she could easily have said “no.”)
2 Likes
I see this very differently. I don’t see any consent. I see a poor child being abused. I see it this way because I live in today’s world where children are abused. I have a difficult time sugar coating this story into something wonderful.
Hi @Patrick,
My own take on the Annunciation is pretty much the same as that of @Guy_Coe. The angel says, “You will conceive and give birth to a son,” Mary asks, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”, the angel answers, “The Holy Spirit will come on you,” and Mary replies, “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Only after that does the Incarnation take place. Bear in mind that at that time, every Jewish woman would have dreamed of being the mother of the Messiah.
You speak of Mary being “a poor child.” However, she was already betrothed to Joseph, and the angel refers to her as “blessed among women,” implying that she wasn’t just a girl. She may well have been 14 or 15. If (as you appear to suggest) she was not at an age to give valid consent to becoming pregnant, then neither were the other women of her time, who got married as the same age as she did. Taken to its logical conclusion, the “too young to consent” argument would make them all rape victims. Further generalized, it would mean that until the late 20th century, nearly all marriages worldwide were morally indistinguishable from rape. I think we need to recognize that it’s our own civilization that’s anomalous, historically speaking. Throughout most of human history, people have started families and worked to support them, while still in their mid-teens. Why? Because life was short. Cheers.
2 Likes
Since I’m the one who first brought up the “Mary’s child’s virgin conception” topic (as an example of God using supernatural powers to modulate genetic information) … I think I can firmly insist that you have hijacked the thread with Atheism.
Do you think we can discuss the genetic nature of Birds and Dinosaurs without a stupid lecture on rape?
I know the first post of this thread is yours… but it really doesn’t give you license to arbitrarily and unnecessarily introduce Atheist-specific tangents at a moment’s notice.
@swamidass, do you follow the nature of my objection here? How many times are we to endure these divergent sallies into irrelevant matters? Patrick shows, over and over, that he really doesn’t have much self-control on these matters. Which is one of the reasons BioLogos dropped him from the participant list.
That does seem to make this something different than @Patrick wants it to be.
- There was consent.
- The consent was prior to conception.
- There was no sex involved.
If anything, we should be concerned for poor Joseph, as Mary felt no need to consult with him!
Well, we’ve made a new thread, so hopefully that solves that problem.
2 Likes